mordorbund

I figure it’s because Luke is writing to a gentile audience; so he tones things down a notch.  Also, Matthew is very interested in making sure his readers know just what the Jewish establishment did to Christ and what their punishment is going to be . . . Luke has no such priorities.
With regard to a wedding garment:  what I get out of that is that even for the Johnny-come-latelies who are invited from the highways and hedgerows, there *is* a price to be paid.  They are expected to show respect for the nature of the event.  The invitation may have been to both bad and good (v 10), but the bad are expected to make themselves good (or at least be willing to explain their failure to do so and beg their Lord’s pardon) or else will find themselves being dismissed from the feast.  

I've been thinking about this on and off all afternoon, and I think I could offer another insight: that Jesus deliberately made this story ridiculous in order to give it shock and surprise value. It is not something that would ever actually happen in the real world.
We have a king - not just a rich man, but an actual king. Kings, in those days, were not people you trifled with. You certainly did not kill a king's servants - just for fun - just because they came to summon you to a feast. It was an idiotic thing to do and the result was inevitable. Yet it was exactly what the Israelites had done. Could they really be surprised by how God had dealt with them?
It's the same with the parable of the vinyard (Matthew 21:33-41). Would you send your son to reason with a bunch of cut throats who'd already murdered half your servants? I don't think you would! Yet God loved the Israelites so much that he'd done exactly that!
And the Prodigal Son (Luke 15:11-32). For a son to ask for his inheritance while his father was still alive was a supreme insult. And for the father to welcome his son back with joy after he had squandered it all on prostitutes - that was just plain ridiculous! Yet that is the extent of God's love for his children.
We accept the oddness of these stories with a shrug because we're so used to them. There could be value in recognising their silliness as part of their intended effect!
 

“Dude did you see that thing?!?!”
”Yeah, it was … I don’t know what!”
”<squealing in shock>”
”I mean…. It was…… did you see…..”
”You talking about that thing with the short nose?”
<group stare >
”<still squealing in shock>”

I believe this is true.
I also believe He is more strict, severe, and harsh than most of us give Him credit for.
Here's my take, for what it's worth.
People pit justice against mercy as if they're opposing forces (not saying you're doing that, just generally). My view has always been that justice encompasses mercy. Justice is equivalent to fairness. God is perfectly just. He is perfectly fair.
The atonement and God's plan for us with it is designed so that God can be just. Perfectly. Without the atonement I don't think God could be perfectly just. With it He can. That's why it was done. That's why it is His plan. In His perfectness he satisfies justice.
I know the scriptures speak of the theoretical, no mercy without the atonement. But I think there's also no justice without the atonement. As if God would send us to earth, give us no way to repent, and then condemn us all. He would not do that. It would not be just. But he also would not do as Satan's plan implied either...save us all regardless. That also wouldn't be just.
Justice will be. Period. There will be no "you deserved this but you're getting that instead". Everyone will get what they deserve*. They will get what they deserve BECAUSE of the atonement. (Of course we're getting into semantics here a bit, because from another view practically no one will get what they deserve. Since by strict law we all deserve the darkest hell.)
Mercy cannot rob justice. It must be PART of justice. Justice must be. God cannot be unfair. Will not be unfair. He won't punish when it isn't deserved*. He won't reward when it isn't deserved (once again "deserved" being a semantically relative term*.)
He made a way for us to escape the condemnation required from our sin. Christ paid that price. Therefore we can repent.
*The way we "deserve" anything is through the conditions set -- which conditions are faith in His name, obedience to His law, and repentance when we transgress that law.
In other words, God will not condemn any who repent... that is his mercy. But he will not save any who do not repent. That is His justice.
So yes, his mercy is greater than we understand. But we cannot and should not think that means that any of us can be saved in our sins. We can and will be saved from our sins if we repent. If we do not repent, we cannot be saved, and no amount of presumed mercy can or will change that.

I remember this photo clearly, it was taken in the late 1970s. The girl in the yellow jacket is Joanne. The elephant on the right with the big tusks is Bob.
The Article of Faith race was a regular event in my Primary. As an incentive to help us learn the Articles of Faith faster, we would line up at the starting point in the carpark. The elephants were 20 meters behind us. We would both start the race together. If we made it across the carpark while correctly reciting an Article of Faith, we were safe. If not, we would be “tusked.” I think the same technique was used to help prospective elders learn the Oath and Covenant of the Priesthood. It was a very effective teaching technique, but eventually the Bishop put a stop to it because the cost of feeding the elephants was too much of a drain on the ward budget. 

Oh sure, mom can glue entire rolls of pictures to the wall, but I color one small patch……

My brother introduced the phrase to us when we lived in Texas back in the last century.
Later I learned others knew the joke too.
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/1988/01/charades?lang=eng
 
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/1989/03/brother-to-brother-part-three?lang=eng
 
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/friend/1997/01/doing-good-to-all-men?lang=eng

But there are a lot of people still who know nothing about the Church other than "Mormon" and "LDS" or "Latter-day Saint" - but usually just "Mormon".  And those people are convinced by the words of the people you mention that "Mormons aren't Christians".  Because usually, the people you mention don't bother to say something like, "They say they believe in Jesus Christ, but they don't believe in the trinity."  Rather, they say something like, "Mormons aren't Christians."

This is on everyone's list of favorite parables. Normally called "the prodigal son", the parable actually has little to do with the younger son's prodigality (that is, his spendthriftiness, or willingness to spend all his money). It's the third of three parables—more accurately, it is the third of three stories in the Savior's parable about the importance of retrieving that which is lost—and is the most moving.
The strange part is that, while each story focuses on the value of the lost thing, whether sheep, coin, or son, the lost son story seems to put focus not on the son who was lost and then found, but on the faithful son. You could almost...allllllmost, but not quite...believe that the "lost" son was the one who stayed, and was lost in his own jealousy and bitterness. I don't know, maybe that's a subtext. What I find both curious and very comforting is the tenor of the father's words, the care and love with which he treated his elder son, and the mild way he responded to his embittered son's deprecations and accusations.
The older son was out of line. We all recognize that. Yet he is portrayed almost sympathetically. Who has ever read the account and not felt the righteous indignation of the son? Who hasn't at least secretly agreed with the son to some degree? Who hasn't felt the father's love and concern for his otherwise faithful son? The whole situation is absolutely understandable to every human being. We sympathize with the older son, and even if we don't agree with him (which we shouldn't), we feel sympathy for him. Malachi's words come, almost unbidden, to mind:
"Ye have said, It is vain to serve God: and what profit is it that we have kept his ordinance, and that we have walked mournfully before the LORD of hosts? And now we call the proud happy; yea, they that work wickedness are set up; yea, they that tempt God are even delivered. Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name."
The Lord remembers, much better even than we ourselves remember. Known to God are all our works, and not just our wickedness, but our strivings for something better. We are not justified in envying God's mercy to our brethren, but we are understood. We must do better. We need to do better. But we are not condemned for our weaknesses. Not yet. God understands. When appropriate, God weeps for us. God does not now condemn us; rather, he calls to us and asks us to join  him. Only if we resist his love and turn our backs on him are we truly lost.
I suppose that Jesus had in mind to offer a parable of hope, not only to the foolish prodigals wasting their strength with harlots, but also to those who try to be faithful and don't understand why there is no fatted calf slain for them and their friends who stayed home to keep the animals fed and the fires burning.

it is more important to study the book and it's teachings, and then to follow them. It is possible to get sidelined in our efforts to figure out the exact locations. Besides, we know that the entirety of the Book of Mormon took place on Vancouver Island.

Jesus Christ is our salvation.  His is the only name.  He is the only way.  Without him, all are damned.  Sure, his name is slightly different in various languages.  Sure, he has many names.  But the person we know as Jesus Christ is the only one with the power to offer us salvation and exaltation.  And as Alma said, we will be called by his (Christ's) name at the last day.  If you don't know that name, or more precisely, if you haven't taken it upon yourself by covenant (either personally or by proxy), then you are not saved or exalted.  It is that simple.  So yes, the name matters.  Eventually (by the end of the Millennium) all will have heard it and decided whether to accept or reject the person whose name it is.

Is oxygenation of our blood more important than breathing? The question itself is defective. "Faith in Jesus Christ" and "the condition of our hearts" are not separate or separable phenomena. Faith in Christ determines the condition of one's heart, and the condition of one's heart determines the ability to exercise faith in Christ.
FTR, the answer is "faith in Christ". That is the important determiner. On this point, the scriptures are clear.

Here's what President Nelson had to say:

Here is what Jesus had to say:
 
First, the Atonement is something Jesus Christ did.  It is not a sentient entity capable of acting independently, it is not a series of rules, it is not a magical incantation or source of energy.  It was a collection of acts and events which Christ carried out and endured.  Without Christ, there is no "Atonement" - they cannot be separated.  I refer you again to President Nelson:
Here is what King Benjamin had to say (I recommend reading the whole chapter if not the whole speech):
Here is what Alma had to say:
@mikbone had it right - faith in Christ cannot be separated from the condition of your heart - it is a condition of your heart.
As previously stated, there is no disconnecting faith in Christ from the condition of you heart.  But why?  Because the Atonement doesn't save, obedience doesn't save, ordinances don't save, justice and mercy don't save.  Jesus Christ saves.  Even those like little children who die before the age of accountability are saved by Jesus Christ.  Those who die without the law and are judged based on what they understood and did, who never heard the name Jesus Christ, are still saved by Jesus Christ (Moroni 8:22) (ETA: Also Mosiah 3:11). He is the way - the only way and the only name.  There is no salvation without him.
I will post separately about broken heart and contrite spirit.

The home page of the church has a Common questions section and the first question is: Are members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints Christian?

The answer given: Yes! As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, we believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God and the Savior of the World. He loves us all more than we can imagine. We consider ourselves devoted followers of Jesus. While some of our beliefs are distinct, we believe that through His life, ministry, sacrifice, and resurrection, Jesus Christ saves us from sin, suffering, and death.

I have an admittedly curmudgeonly attitude toward the "Mormons are/aren't Christians" debate. I think it's misguided, ignorant, and useless. If we're being candid, I agree with the Mormon-haters about the use of "Christian" to describe Latter-day Saints; that is, from their point of view, I think their argument holds water.
From a "traditional" point of view, post-Fall of Rome (more like post-AD 150), Christians were those who believed and accepted certain ideas (e.g. the Holy Trinity) and who disbelieved and rejected as heretical certain other ideas (e.g. premortal life). It's been close to 1900 years that Europe and western societies in general have accepted this definition, and by this definition, Latter-day Saints certainly are not Christians. Which I'm perfectly okay with. I worship the true and living God, about whom I am vastly ignorant but I may know some things about him that most who call themselves Christian do not. Whether they think I'm wrong or right has exactly zero bearing on whether I'm actually wrong or right. To them, the term "Christian" means something that doesn't apply to me. Okay by me. Whatever.
The issue is not that I disagree with them. I simply don't care about their point of view. I know perfectly well whom I worship and to whom I pray. If they want to say that I worship A Different Jesus®, let them prattle on. I don't care. The honest ones among them will recognize the true spirit of Christ, and will probably not say such nonsense. As for the rest, they can and will go to hell with the rest of humanity to meet the god they worship, and I'm willing to leave them to their chosen destiny.

Well, someone has to fund Armageddon...

Oh, yeah, shame me for my misattribution. Very nice. As Joseph Smith said in General Conference, "Stop it."

<sniff> So romantic!  

In that moment, all of Tautology Club knew they made the right choice.

For all we know, God the Father didn't need to be saved any more than Jesus Christ needed to be saved.  (And I personally think there are more than two options: needs to be saved, or is a Savior.  At the very least, there ought to be a third, "perfect, but also not a Savior" - for all we know.)
If the King Follett sermon argues against the plan being created initially by God, it does so not because God may have needed to be saved, but because God existed before attaining Godhood and prior to that, he had (presumably) not yet progressed far enough to have anticipated Godhood and a plan of salvation.  But this is also speculation.  We know nothing of God before he was God - if there even was a before (after all, when Christ was mortal, he was also God, and before Christ was mortal, he was God, and we don't know anything really from before that).  So see below.
The King Follett sermon doesn't give near enough details for all these conclusions.  We have no idea what God's mortal or pre-mortal existence was like.  We know nothing of prior generations, nor parallel.  We simply know nothing.  Maybe it's God's variation on the eternal plan of salvation that's always followed everywhere from eternity to eternity, or maybe it's God's very own creation for his children.  We don't know.  While I don't really have an issue with exploring possibilities, I would caution against "logic-ing" out things that haven't been revealed, and even more against getting emotionally or intellectually attached to them - such attachments often lead people astray.  Being willing to accept that there are things we don't know and likely won't know in this life, and trusting God anyway, is part of building faith.
Indeed, I think it's worth pondering on why God has revealed next to nothing outside of the basic requirements for following said plan of salvation.
IMO, the hypotheticals you presented don't defeat true omnipotence, they just show a lack of understanding of the word.
This seems reasonable and consistent with Church teachings.

First, single people pay through the nose on taxes--more than married people. That's not the problem. Married people pay more than two people living together. Because single parents endure more hardships couples often find it advantageous, for tax reasons, not to marry. It's not uncommon to hear that a couple is choosing to live in sin because they cannot afford the added taxes they would incur if they married. 
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/marriage-penalty.asp
BTW, most people of faith agree with @JohnsonJones. Most also know that wanting a return to the morality of yesteryear is desirable but unlikely given today's cultural climate.

In that moment, all of Tautology Club knew they made the right choice.

In that moment, all of Tautology Club knew they made the right choice.